Citation NR: 9632760
Decision Date: 11/18/96 Archive Date: 12/02/96
DOCKET NO. 95-12 661 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis,
Missouri
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for a disability
characterized as loss of hair on the forearms and shins due
to chemical exposure.
2. Entitlement to service connection for a disability
characterized as tingling in the arms and legs due to
chemical exposure.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Missouri Veterans Commission
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Nadine W. Benjamin, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from October 1954 to May
1956. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals
(Board) on appeal from a November 1994 rating decision by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
St. Louis, Missouri.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL
The veteran contends that he was exposed to chemicals during
service, and that he subsequently developed hair loss on his
shins and arms as well as tingling of the arms and legs. He
argues that service connection is warranted for these
disabilities.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 1995), has reviewed and considered
all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's
claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in
this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is
the decision of the Board that the veteran has not met his
initial burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a
belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claims are
well grounded.
FINDING OF FACT
The claims of entitlement to service connection for a
disability characterized as loss of hair on the arms and
shins and for a disability characterized as tingling of the
arms and legs are not plausible.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The claims of entitlement to service connection for a
disability characterized as loss of hair on the arms and
shins and for a disability characterized as tingling of the
arms and legs are not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (a)
(West 1991 & Supp. 1995).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The threshold question to be answered is whether the veteran
has presented evidence of well-grounded claims, that is,
claims which are plausible and meritorious on their own or
capable of substantiation. If he has not, his appeal must
fail. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991 & Supp. 1995); Murphy
v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78 (1990). The Board finds that
the veteran's claims for service connection for a disability
characterized as a loss of hair on the arms and shins and for
a disability characterized as tingling of the arms and legs
are not well grounded, and there is no further duty to assist
the veteran in the development of his claims.
Service connection may be granted for disability resulting
from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991 & Supp. 1995).
The Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that a claim
for service connection may not be considered to be well
grounded where there is no evidence which demonstrates the
presence of the disorder alleged by the veteran at any time
after discharge from service. Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2
Vet.App. 141 (1992). Service connection is not in order in
the absence of any residuals or evidence of a disability
currently. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 223, 225
(1992).
Where a determinative issue involves medical causation,
competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is
plausible is required to establish that the claim is well
grounded. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993). As
stated above, in Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81
(1990), the Court defined a well-grounded claim as a
plausible claim, one which is meritorious on its own or
capable of substantiation. Such a claim need not be
conclusive but only possible to satisfy the initial burden of
38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). The test is an objective one which
explores the likelihood of prevailing on the claim under the
applicable standards. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App.
49 (1990). Although the claim need not be conclusive, it
must be accompanied by evidence. Furthermore, the evidence
must justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that
the claim is plausible. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107.
Service medical records reveal complaints, diagnoses or
treatment for hair loss of the arms and shins or for tingling
of the arms and legs. The veteran was examined by VA in
September 1971, and no pertinent complaints or abnormalities
were noted. The record contains no medical records which
refer to complaints, diagnoses or treatment for either of the
claimed disabilities at issue here.
The Board is aware of the veteran’s statements and his
hearing testimony offered in support of his claim. While the
veteran is competent to provide evidence of symptoms, he is
not competent to provide evidence that requires medical
knowledge. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992).
There is nothing in the record to show that the veteran was
exposed to chemicals in service, and there is no objective
evidence of record in the form of medical treatment or
examination records that show that the veteran currently has
a hair loss on the arms and shin, and/or tingling of the arms
and legs due to chemical exposure. Further, the veteran has
provided no medical opinion linking any current disability to
service. Absent evidence of any current disability which
could be associated with service, the Board finds the claims
are not plausible. Therefore, the Board finds that the
veteran's claims for service connection are not well
grounded.
Although the Board has considered and denied the appeal on
grounds different from that of the RO, which denied the
claims on the merits, the veteran has not been prejudiced by
the Board's decision. This is because in assuming that the
claim was well grounded, the RO accorded the veteran greater
consideration than the claim in fact warranted under the
circumstances. Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 384, 392-94
(1993).
The veteran is free at any time in the future to submit
evidence in support of his claims. Medical records of
complaints and treatment of a hair loss of the arms and shins
and/or tingling of the arms and legs would be helpful in
establishing well-grounded claims, as well as medical opinion
linking any current findings with the veteran’s military
service. Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 69 (1995).
ORDER
Service connection for a disability characterized as hair
loss of the arms and shins due to chemical exposure is
denied.
Service connection for a disability characterized as tingling
of the arms and legs due to chemical exposure is denied.
F. JUDGE FLOWERS
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.
NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West
1991 & Supp. 1995), a decision of the Board of Veterans'
Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits,
sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of
Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of
notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of
Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board
was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or
after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act,
Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402, 102 Stat. 4105, 4122 (1988). The
date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes
the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you
have received is your notice of the action taken on your
appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
- 2 -